This is something that ahppened that has made me so mad, I just had to comment on it.

Eminent Domain is something which is often used for "Public Works" projects.  Traditionally this means that the Government can force you to sell your house or property so they can build a highway, road, water plant, dam, waterway, or other structure or facility that helps the population at large.  About the only exception has been the right to use this for railroad construction.  WHile the railroads were privately owned, there is no doubt that everybody benefited from them.

This right is spelled out in the Constitution, in the 5th Ammendment.  In addition to prevention of self-incrimination, it also states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  "Public Use" being the key phrase.  In the past, that has almost always been reserved for Government activities.

But now, the Court has set that aside, and allowed town officials in Norwood Connecticut to take away peoples homes and businesses in order to build an office complex, hotels, and high cost housing.  They are doing this, because Phizer wants the land.

This means now that anybody can have their property taken away by the city, because they want to get more tax revenues for the land by selling it to somebody else.  This is a very dangerous precident.

This was a split decision, comming across in a 5-4 vote.  I can only hope that somehow this will be overturned.  While I myself do not like the "NIMBY mindset", people should have the right to refuse to sell their property to private developers.

And before anybody screams on Conservitives destroying this country, look at the justices who voted for this.  Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer are the ones that let this change happen.  This is the so-called "Liberal Wing" of the court.  SO when in the future your property is taken away from you and sold to make way for a new Supermarket or Luxury Hotel, do not blame Conservatives.  Every member of the "Conservative" and "Moderate" wing of the US Supreme Court voted against this decision.

And as a side note, watch in the future what happens to Religious buildings in the comming years because of this decision.  Churches and temples are tax-exempt.  But with this decision, a city can take that prime downtown land where a Catholic Church sits, and seize it.  They can then sell that land to a large conglomerate, and make loads of taxes from the land.  Who cares if the church is forced to move?  The community now makes more tax revenue where it made none in the past.

*fading back into the woodwork*

http://boortz.com/images/property_rights_tombstone.jpg

While the situation in Norwood is a bit more complex than Mushroom put it - the city will own the land and rent it to the private sector, which will pay taxes for the use of it - I too am appauled at this decision (see, I CAN, sometimes, agree with our conservative friends).  I can't understand the logic used to arrive at this decision, and I certainly can't support it.  Eminant domaine for the public good is one thing, eminant domian for private profit is quite another.  This is an outrage.

I think you're jumping the gun on the whole Liberal judges thing again:

Justice - who appointed

Majority Opinion:
John Paul Stevens - Ford
R. Bader Ginsberg - Clinton
David H. Souter - Bush I
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan
Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton

Minority Opinion:
Clarence Thomas - Bush I
William H. Rehnquist - Nixon, then Reagan for Chief Justice
Antonin Scalia - Reagan
Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan

so let's see... two of the justices for this, were appointed by very conservative presidents.  yet they're all liberals who voted for this?

Also, this puts the ball back into the STATES courts.  Which means, "States Rights", which the dissenters usually want to focus on. 

Over 90% of the people polled so far think this was a pretty stupid ruling.  With backing like that, if the conservatives really want to do something about this, they can easily draft an amendment to fix this decision, clean up the language of Eminent domain and "public interest".  I'm sure their coporate masters won't object at all.  I bet they think it's better to spend their time on things that really matter, like protecting the flag or rushing to pass legislation to keep a vegitable alive a little longer.

This can of worms got opened a long time ago, when it was decided that "blight" constituted a good reason for eminent domain to be used. 

I think you're jumping the gun on the whole Liberal judges thing again:

Justice - who appointed

Majority Opinion:
John Paul Stevens - Ford
R. Bader Ginsberg - Clinton
David H. Souter - Bush I
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan
Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton

Minority Opinion:
Clarence Thomas - Bush I
William H. Rehnquist - Nixon, then Reagan for Chief Justice
Antonin Scalia - Reagan
Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan


Just because a republican president nominated them doesn't make them conservative.  Souter and Stevens have always been known to be liberals.

Let's see what the Associated Press wrote: ".....He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter....."  Here is the link.

Both democratic picks sided with this horrible ruling that seems to have disgusted everyone from both sides of the political aisle.  All four people on the supreme court who stood up for private property rights were conservative, especially Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas.  O'Connor has always been like a coin, you never know where she'll come down on rulings.  Kennedy was somewhat of a surprise, being the only non-liberal one of the court who went with this.  Him and O'Connor have always been the moderates.

And some wonder why us on the right wanted Robert Bork over Kennedy.

I think you're jumping the gun on the whole Liberal judges thing again:

Justice - who appointed

Majority Opinion:
John Paul Stevens - Ford
R. Bader Ginsberg - Clinton
David H. Souter - Bush I
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan
Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton

Minority Opinion:
Clarence Thomas - Bush I
William H. Rehnquist - Nixon, then Reagan for Chief Justice
Antonin Scalia - Reagan
Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan

so let's see... two of the justices for this, were appointed by very conservative presidents.  yet they're all liberals who voted for this?


Justices on the Supreme Court often vote against those who appointed them.  Nixon was one of the most Moderate Republicans ever elected, and his apointee Kennedy often sides with the more Liberal Judges on the bench.  In fact, Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer were the minority judges in the decision over the 2000 election.  To follow your reasoning, then the vote in 2000 should have been 7 to 2, not 5 to 4.


This can of worms got opened a long time ago, when it was decided that "blight" constituted a good reason for eminent domain to be used. 


Very different situation.  That decision was used (mostly in large cities like LA) to help a comminuty remove crack houses and places where prostitution and drugs were widespread.  And in a majority of those cases, the owners were absentee.  Nobody has determined these buildings to be a community hazard.  The city simply wanted to increase their tax revenue.

don't celebrate the conservative morals too much on this issue

http://www.forbes.com/business/services/2005/06/23/pfizer-kelo-scotus-cx_da_0623kelo.html

The dissenting opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that the majority had gone too far, but not by much.

in other words, while she disagrees, she thought almost all of this land grab was fine.

In the end, though, O'Connor would have overturned the taking of two parcels, which would have been for office space and parking. The rest, including retail shops, other office space and private condominiums, was OK.

wow... truly a defender there... parking isn't ok, but retail was.

The reason the judges ruled on this, comes down to siding with the local courts.  Like I said, this is what the conservatives have been arguining for with their abortion arguments for years.  See what happens when they see that argument applied to an issue they dislike?  They want the states to have rights, so long as those states agree with them.

One reason I am so upset about this decision, is that directly impacts something that happened here in my town last month.

TA Truckstops has been trying to build a truck stop in Dothan, Alabama for years.  While nobody denies that it would be a good thing, the location where they want to build it is not good.  It will basically destroy a block of private homes, and place this truck stop facing homes on 2 sides.  This would not be a problem if they simply moved it 1 mile south.

Now for years, the citizens have been able to prevent the city council from approving this.  But last month, the city used "Eminent Domain", and approved the plans.  It is well known locally that the city council wanted this, but the voters did not.  Last year they moved the meeting times from 7pm to 10am.  This means that it is much harder for those that work to attend town meetings.  The last meeting was given with only 2 weeks notice, and because of the time very few who opposed this were able to attend.

The oposition group was planning on trying a lawsuit to stop this, but now it appears that TA and the city council has won.  They will get their truck stop, and the value of hundreds of homes nearby will be drastically lowered.

Yes, "eminent domain" creates some real Constitutional conundrums, but let's fantastically fob it off on "liberal judged."  If you'll look back in American history on who got eminent-domained (to coin a verbage) for whose benefit, you'll find it was poor folk getting shoved out of the way for corporate profit.  Start with the railroads and go from there.

In the case of public works, the constitutionality is just as debatable.  For instance, in 1938 four towns in Massachusetts forefeited their charters and got leveled to the ground to make way for the Quabbin Reservoir project.  The state needed more water to serve a burgeoning population.  The Smith River valley was deemed the best choice.  It goes back to the balance between "private rights" and "public good."  You can start on either extreme, Stalinist or Libertarian, but the issue goes immediately gray thereafter!

Yes, "eminent domain" creates some real Constitutional conundrums, but let's fantastically fob it off on "liberal judged."  If you'll look back in American history on who got eminent-domained (to coin a verbage) for whose benefit, you'll find it was poor folk getting shoved out of the way for corporate profit.  Start with the railroads and go from there.

In the case of public works, the constitutionality is just as debatable.  For instance, in 1938 four towns in Massachusetts forefeited their charters and got leveled to the ground to make way for the Quabbin Reservoir project.  The state needed more water to serve a burgeoning population.  The Smith River valley was deemed the best choice.  It goes back to the balance between "private rights" and "public good."  You can start on either extreme, Stalinist or Libertarian, but the issue goes immediately gray thereafter!


I had relatives on my mother's side that were displaced by it. In that case, it was for the public good, and clearly it wasn't just a handful of coporate owners benefiting from it. Though I have to disagree with the bailout of the Boston area sewer bills by the state, which passed on their expenses to the people who don't benefit from the system.

They should add one little clause to the end of the eminent domain clause.  Taken for public use for projects to be majority owned by the public.  That would curtail the abuse mightily quick.

Nixon was one of the most Moderate Republicans ever elected, and his apointee Kennedy often sides with the more Liberal Judges on the bench.

I hate to correct you since me and you agree, but Kennedy was a Reagan pick, only after the democrats defeated Robert H. Bork (if he got on instead on Kennedy, today's decision wouldn't have happened.)

don't celebrate the conservative morals too much on this issue

http://www.forbes.com/business/services/2005/06/23/pfizer-kelo-scotus-cx_da_0623kelo.html

The dissenting opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that the majority had gone too far, but not by much.

in other words, while she disagrees, she thought almost all of this land grab was fine.

In the end, though, O'Connor would have overturned the taking of two parcels, which would have been for office space and parking. The rest, including retail shops, other office space and private condominiums, was OK.

wow... truly a defender there... parking isn't ok, but retail was.

O'Connor is one of the moderates in my opinion, as in Kennedy.  I wrote this at the bottom of my first post in the other thread I started on the same subject.  The only conservatives on the US supreme court are Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist.

I had relatives on my mother's side that were displaced by it. In that case, it was for the public good, and clearly it wasn't just a handful of coporate owners benefiting from it. Though I have to disagree with the bailout of the Boston area sewer bills by the state, which passed on their expenses to the people who don't benefit from the system.


Yeah, sounds familiar!  Can you say "Big Dig"?
::)

Home seizure ruling doesn't play in Texas
The Houston Chronicle
By: Mike Snyder and Matt Stiles
06/24/05

After decision, an amendment is quickly proposed to limit powers of eminent domain

Texas' cultural commitment to private property rights surfaced quickly Thursday as a state legislator moved to blunt the impact of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that local governments may seize land for private development.

Hours after the court's 5-4 ruling came down, Rep. Frank Corte Jr., R-San Antonio, said he would seek "to defend the rights of property owners in Texas" by proposing a state constitutional amendment limiting local powers of eminent domain, or condemnation.

Houston Mayor Bill White and Harris County Judge Robert Eckels offered assurances that the city and county do not intend to condemn land for private development projects.

But officials in the beachfront town of Freeport, south of Houston, said they would move aggressively to condemn property owned by two seafood companies to clear the way for an $8 million private marina.

The Supreme Court ruled against a group of property owners in New London, Conn., who challenged a city plan to demolish their riverfront homes to make way for offices, a hotel and other commercial buildings.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the majority opinion, said such projects are within the scope of a clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that authorizes condemning property for "public use."

Stevens wrote that promoting economic development, the stated goal of the New London project, "is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized," such as taking land for roads, parks or libraries.

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority's interpretation of "public use" was so broad that "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Joining Stevens in the majority were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Dissenting with O'Connor were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The opinion said states concerned about excessive use of condemnation were free to pass laws restricting it, and Corte said he intended to do just that.

Corte said he would ask Gov. Rick Perry to add the condemnation issue to the agenda of the special legislative session now under way so that the proposed constitutional amendment could appear on the November ballot.

Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said the governor would consider requests to add items to the agenda, but probably not until legislators resolve the school finance issue. She said Perry supports property rights and was concerned about the Supreme Court ruling.

Corte said in a news release that his proposed amendment would "limit a local governmental entity's power of eminent domain, preventing them from bulldozing residences in favor of private developers."

White and Eckels said such concerns were unfounded in Houston and Harris County.

"The city of Houston has not, and likely never will, use eminent domain powers as aggressively as some cities simply for the purposes of economic development," White said in a statement. "We do respect property rights, and believe that eminent domain should not be used in a way that might simply benefit one economic interest versus another."

The mayor said, however, that he is pleased the court upheld the use of eminent domain to reduce blight.

Eckels said Commissioners Court has shown no inclination to condemn land for private development, and he would not support any move to do so.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority, empowered by the law that created it to condemn property within 1,500 feet of transit stations, is not "currently planning" to use that authority for projects along the Main Street light rail line or elsewhere, spokesman Ken Connaughton said.

Asked if the agency might exercise the authority in the future, Connaughton said, "Who knows what happens tomorrow? But there are no plans to do it."

Barry Klein, president of the Houston Property Rights Association, said he considers Metro's condemnation authority excessive. He said quasi-governmental agencies such as management districts and tax increment reinvestment zones might also try to take advantage of the court ruling.

"I'm sure there are some self-servingly creative people in the leadership of these organizations who will try to find a way to do this," Klein said.

Developer Ed Wulfe of Houston-based Wulfe & Co. said Houston's public entities have long resisted acquiring property through eminent domain unless it was for road improvements or other public uses.

Wulfe said, however, that governments and developers can use the type of condemnation cited in the New London case as a tool to redevelop inner-city neighborhoods that stand to benefit economically.

"I think on a very, very careful and selective basis it could be used to improve neighborhoods," said Wulfe. "Whether it's creating affordable housing or jobs, it could be an interesting way to remove blight."

Matthew Deal of Lewis Realty Advisors, a property appraisal and consulting firm that deals in condemnation, said Houston's new downtown sports arenas offer a good example of the benefits of local governments taking full advantage of their eminent domain powers.

The sports arenas energized parts of downtown that were "ridden with crime, boarded-up buildings and dangerous to be in," said Deal, calling the Supreme Court ruling "a score for governments and their development partners."

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

Chronicle reporters Nancy Sarnoff and Bill Murphy contributed to this report.

Link: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3239023

:-\\ :-\\Can the police come to your house and open the door if they think you are a drug dealer or ?? What covers that?

:-\\ :-\\Can the police come to your house and open the door if they think you are a drug dealer or ?? What covers that?


I think they need a search warrant for that

I think they need a search warrant for that


unless they have probable cause

And so begins,



1984!

Americans prepare!

Tanya

And so begins,



1984!

Americans prepare!

Tanya



by far this is the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever made...and remember, this is the same branch of government that ruled a slave is not a person and that seperate but equal is ok. 

ok, maybe its not THE worst, but its pretty dang bad.  Horrible decision. 

When you are stopped while driving, do they need a warrant to look through your car?

Many have fallen to other charges as they were searched  that way/???

So I guess the saying is true.... you can't go home again, but you certaintly shop there...  ::)

If you'll look back in American history on who got eminent-domained (to coin a verbage) for whose benefit, you'll find it was poor folk getting shoved out of the way for corporate profit.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/potlatch/Best%20%20Gifs/progress.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/potlatch/Best%20%20Gifs/progress.gif



Actually, I think it would be this.


http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:lhb-GcIWeGcJ:www.explainplease.com/todayinnews/300px-Walmart_exterior.jpg




Cat

When GW, Mushroom, Don Carlos and Maxwell all agree that something is wrong, something is SERIOUSLY wrong.

When GW, Mushroom, Don Carlos and Maxwell all agree that something is wrong, something is SERIOUSLY wrong.




I know what you mean. I think people in H3ll should start breaking out the parkas.




Cat

When GW, Mushroom, Don Carlos and Maxwell all agree that something is wrong, something is SERIOUSLY wrong.


I know what you mean, and something IS seriously wrong.  From my perspective its not a liberal vrs conservative issue either.  My home is my castle, and it should be up to me if I want to seel it to Wal-Mart, and none of government's business.

I know what you mean, and something IS seriously wrong.  From my perspective its not a liberal vrs conservative issue either.  My home is my castle, and it should be up to me if I want to seel it to Wal-Mart, and none of government's business.


Yeah, what this is is a class issue.  A lot of the issues we discuss are class issues.  This one is in the fore
front because it involves the middle classes, as well as the working class, working poor, and poor.

When you are stopped while driving, do they need a warrant to look through your car?

Many have fallen to other charges as they were searched  that way/???


They need no warrent, but they do need "probable cause" to use whatever they find against you, at least in VT.


Yeah, what this is is a class issue. A lot of the issues we discuss are class issues. This one is in the fore
front because it involves the middle classes, as well as the working class, working poor, and poor.



Its a class WARFARE issue, another bougeois salvo aimed at the "lower classes".  As Mayor Hugh Adonizio of Newark N.J. saaid during the 1964? riots there, when asked why he wasn't putting out the fires that raged in the ghetto "Let it burn.  We'll get lots of Federal money for urban renewal, and gentrification."  Its all deplorable.

Now comes the perfect story of "Return Justice".

I see that once again, this topic has gone to a "Conservative Vs Liberal" debate, which to me is *NOT* the point.  But it seems that now one of the people that voted in favor of this may get his just deserts.

It seems that Justice David H. Souter owns a house in Weare, New Hampshire, and somebody wants it so they can build a hotel.  They have already sent in the plans to the city council.  If 3 of the 5 members on the council approve, then Justice Souter can have his house taken away under the same action that he approved just last week.

Now obviously the name and timing of this shows that it is done in retribution, but it also shows the danger everybody is in because of this action.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029

"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected as as outraged as those who are." -- Benjamin Franklin

I hope they approve it, and take it right out from under his *ss.

Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter s land.

Justice Souter s vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter s home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Cafe" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand s novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Link: http://lonestartimes.com/index.php?p=1095

--God I hope they do this!

I know Weare.  Anybody who wants to build a hotel there ought have his head examined!  There's plenty of lodging for business travelers in Manchester and Bedford.  The airport is in Manchester so is most of the business.  Bedford is right nextdoor on the highway.  Weare is near Manchester, but it's in the woods and the roads are terrible.  Weare is closer to Concord, the capital, as the crow flies, but you'd have to get to the I-93 interchange via routes 77 and 13.  That's a fun drive if you like frost heaves and scenery, but not if you have to get to Concord in a hurry!  It's quicker to come up 93 from Manchester.
I can see opening a quaint B&B in Weare for leaf peepers and skiers, but a hotel?  Doesn't seem like a good idea to me!  Oh well, they've obviously done their market research, so they know what they're doing, I suppose.

I know Weare.  Anybody who wants to build a hotel there ought have his head examined!  There's plenty of lodging for business travelers in Manchester and Bedford.  The airport is in Manchester so is most of the business.  Bedford is right nextdoor on the highway.  Weare is near Manchester, but it's in the woods and the roads are terrible.  Weare is closer to Concord, the capital, as the crow flies, but you'd have to get to the I-93 interchange via routes 77 and 13.  That's a fun drive if you like frost heaves and scenery, but not if you have to get to Concord in a hurry!  It's quicker to come up 93 from Manchester.
I can see opening a quaint B&B in Weare for leaf peepers and skiers, but a hotel?  Doesn't seem like a good idea to me!  Oh well, they've obviously done their market research, so they know what they're doing, I suppose.


I doubt they plan a real good business with it, they just want to get back at Souter.